Did we BREAK the Living Legend System? | Flesh and Blood TCG | Go Again! Ep582

[@musicaddict1235]

Great video. Dont know if it makes sense number wise, but I always thought heroes should have exp modifiers attached to them based on how long they have been released. So the first 6 months of a heros less span, they may have a .8 modifier to prevent them from LL too fast, 6 months to 2 years have a 1.0 modifier, 2 years 1.2 modifier and so on. I know this wont fix they issue of dead wheight heroes, if Olympia isnt winning anything, it does matter what he modifier is, but thats where armoury decks and expansion slots come into play.

[@DamonHart]

These last couple of sets have been overtuned a bit. Maybe it's just me but I like it better when a hero starts out with less power and they build it up. I also think with the amount of heroes it's hard to give cards to every hero that needs it. Olympia, Betsy, and Fai come to mind

[@jiffyb333]

Definitely agree with you about reusing older heroes. It was super exciting to see Rhinar reintroduced with set appropriate art and to get an expansion of where he is at as the lore timeline progresses. Plus it's exciting as a fan of those heroes to see them get a full sets worth of expanded options, especially as a commoner player the draft set expansion of a hero drastically widens their play possibilities. They could always implement an inelegant system of allowing new powerful heroes to accumulate points but not be able to rotate out until 15 months have passed. It will be interesting to see how they tackle this problem going forward, because I imagine if they were going to pivot to using older heroes and draft sets we would only start to notice that in a year and a half or so.

[@DiceCommando]

It would be nice to see more of the older heroes!

[@StanDerg]

Great Discussion! LSS most definitely has a complicated situation on their hand with all this balancing and weighing the pros and cons. But I trust them more than any other TCG company to do what is needed.

[@DiceCommando]

Absolutely!

[@hediomixael]

to me its simple, some times release sets only with old heros. I realy want some WTR 2, give some buff to dori, katsu, rhinar and bravo.

[@clintbonds4770]

Another proposal would be to dial back the win rate that is acceptable. If zen had been winning 10% of skirmish events the velocity would have been much lower and would then have not been in conflict with the bloat because the total LL points could remain high.

[@vioryalina8371]

I think that the point values for various events could also be adjusted to help combat this. A concern that the players could be upset about it at the time, but it seems like an easy to adjust value that doesn't require adjusting set design, but if they get it super wrong it could even be rolled back to previous values & the LL points could be reset/scaled down to the old rates in an emergency. It could also be done as a stopgap between recognizing the problem & when any other slower solution is found and implemented

[@andrewostman3135]

I like the idea of Hero reuse, but it adds a difficulty to itself too and that difficulty is if they're making sets years in advance. They have to be able to adequately predict the expiration of specific Heroes for example viserai because you knew I was going to use him. Has well over 700 points now. Let's say they want to use him for Monarch 3. They have to know he's not going to LL before then. I really like the idea of reentrant Heroes. I feel like they can fill in a specific archetype in a draft or even a set. But I do have a difficulty with them having to anticipate a meta a year in advance

[@heart1of1miles]

I don’t think that is a problem. When they started developing outsiders they knew very well that those heroes needed support in order to compete so developing tools for azalea and katsu was a no brainer. Now we can say the same about Olympia, Betsy, arakne, teklo, riptide they will still be here in 2 years unless a set directly supports them

[@heart1of1miles]

And even if they re release a hero with the same text even if he is close to LL I don’t see a problem with having a hero that is still legal in blitz and limited but LL’s that same season in cc thanks to the new support and is no longer legal there

[@_AudX]

One other thing they could do to increase the "pool" of living legends points without having new heroes instantly LL is to increase the number of points a hero gets as they get older. Though this could also feel bad as a hero like viserai right now would have almost definitely LL'd mid way through this proquest season.

[@filsmartins]

I’m really glad that you brought this issue to light. Everyone wants to play they favourite for as much as possible, but there’s a lot of dead weight in legal heroes. And this bloat has been especially problematic when you’re trying to prepare for competitive events. I know you won’t see every legal hero, but I don’t think anyone would be comfortable not having at least a draft of a gameplan for each hero and that is very hard when every season you have more and more. Maybe LSS needs to be a bit more aggressive with the expansion slots

[@bblappalappa3598]

Andrew, credit to you for making a video on such a fascinating and nuanced topic! I would love to know James’ (and the development team’s) ideal # of heroes in relation to the time needed to adequately test the introduction of new cards, heroes, etc. All things considered, I think LSS has done a wonderful job in balancing these elements, but the maintenance of said balance remains a daunting and tenuous prospect. Go Commando!

[@Morventhus]

Re entrant heroes and adding new cards for them in the draft fixes the expansion slot issue.... There also is the option of if we have a hero gaining no ll points for say 4 years... They fail on their legend journey and retire out.... Instead of expanding on the expansion slot to aggressively fix a hero that may never out match newer ones

[@nerdcoregaming6468]

I really think they should make a point to reuse Heroes. Aside from limiting bloat, I'd love to have multiple arts for each character like Rhinar.

[@DiceCommando]

Re-use would help a lot, for sure.

[@denselross]

Wow, this is a great video. Kudos for taking the time to articulate your thoughts, I honestly do think the community needs to talk about how much bloat there is, or how some heroes feel REAAALLY left behind. Again, great video and great points.

[@DiceCommando]

Appreciate that, thanks for watching!

[@jonathangedeon1875]

LL has felt like the best system in terms of 'rotation' among TCGs for me, although it is not without its issues. Like most systems, I assume it is working towards homeostasis as best it can with LSS continuously adding heroes. Because of the extreme number of variables associated with card games, I believe that balance in all formats needs to be managed by a dedicated team and i dont know if lss has the manpower to do that (

[@andrewostman3135]

I'll have to listen to your cast again when I'm not driving to do the numbers, but you do make a good point. The system sounds like The control Loop has a positive feedback.

[@Marc-gj9vx]

I don't understand why hero bloat is a problem. Just look at Magic Modern format, there's dozen of thousand of valid cards and a lot are not used. Not a problem.

[@DiceCommando]

FaB is very different than Magic.

[@DamonHart]

They don't need to keep on adding cc heroes. When they make the set they could just make them in blitz. At least for a while until the bloat goes away.

[@DiceCommando]

Re-use seems to be a strong option.

[@xahjk]

The Hero bloat is not an issue, The game has to be actively managed regardless of the Hero Roster. If they print something overturned again (which they will) they have to ban it. Look at League of Legends we have some space to still grow. Personally having a lot of heroes is also a boon for the casual experience and Broadcasts.

[@slx]

They could expand the LL points to 2nd+ place heroes, its easy through in marketing terms like being 2nd+ gains notoriety and you get less points. You really look at top8 or day2 for balancing issuing anyway. if the expectation is that heroes LL in 18 months, then you really are looking to phase out 18 heroes every 1.5 yrs. This is assuming they release on avg 12 heroes a year, assuming if LSS wants this current size pool to be maintained. If they release less heroes then they jeopardize limited (a staler format or loss of hero identity) which has been their thought process at getting people to play more.

[@DiceCommando]

To your point, I have always wondered if granting points to top 8 placers would be something to look into. That way say someone getting say 3x into top 8, demonstrating meta dominance, but not winning... still reflects their impact on the meta. I like where your head is at, and I agree. Just not sure how it would land/be implemented.

[@DiceCommando]

The drawback to that of course being, say, a finals mirror-match would essentially double-dip. Maybe a problem, maybe not... but interesting!

[@aburkitt11]

What about the possibility of artificially increasing the available number of LL points by having a hero get a multiplier to LL points based on their age? You could even have brand new heroes such as the MST heroes for MST season start at a 0.5x multiplier for only their season specifically to slow the rate of brand new hero rotation and allow LSS to make the necessary bans to balance new heroes, but have heroes that have been around for more than 1 year get 2x LL points, and increase the multiplier by 1 for every year they remain in the pool.

[@retrofraction]

I have been waiting for a supplemental set for ages, DtD didn’t count in my mind since it was Monarch focused like BL. I also agree they need to expand the expansion slot and start target focusing the lowest 10%. I think 1-2 heroes per class is ideal, 3-4 leads to too much overlap and class base balance issues.

[@focusflute]

Not every hero can be exactly equal in power to the others. Some def need some new cards (Teklovossen) but most just need a card or cards to help them in auto lose MUs

[@stephenpenn2248]

Is FaB a hero-centric game or a class-centric game? Some classes of heroes have a lower average velocity than others. Not sure what the numbers are, but I'm confident that it varies among classes. With that in mind, how do think the Mastery Packs play a role in this? Could Mastery packs positively influence your third option that you recommend?

[@DiceCommando]

I think I see where you're going with this, but I think it's pretty difficult to model that. One could look at Ninja during MST and say 'wow ninja is strong' when the reality was it's Zen... and regardless, Zen is the one that LL's, not all ninjas.

[@stephenpenn2248]

@@DiceCommando Right. Classes don't LL. Good point. Definitely an intriguing topic.

[@DiceCommando]

This is intriguing to me though, as a question, and I'll have to run the numbers. I expect Guardian to be a train-wreck, though, as it includes both the fastest-ever hero (Starvo) and the slowest-ever hero (Betsy).

[@thearmedpit]

To make this balancing act even more complicated, they still need to grow the game. The game is getting into more markets, and the number of events will unlikely decrease anytime soon, meaning even more potential points to account for.

[@DiceCommando]

Excellent point. At what point are PQs worth 0.5 points, right?

[@playtimetcg]

Ideally the heroes that should be LLing are the heroes that have been in the format the longest. So as you suggested, using existing heroes for new sets should focus on older heroes to begin moving them out of the format. I do realize that may be less exciting for some players but it will also help the investor side of FaB and make the game healthier as a whole.

[@playtimetcg]

great video by the way, really enjoyed it

[@DiceCommando]

That's a great point and at least on the surface, seems like a very sustainable approach..

[@andrewostman3135]

I don't know if anybody would like to hear it or not and I know they were in great sellers overall, but maybe they should look into supplemental sets. My thought process behind this is to change the meta without necessarily adding new Heroes. I think maybe that's where their numbers went a bit. Squiffy is because they did have sets where they didn't introduce new Heroes in CC

[@DiceCommando]

That's definitely one of my recommendations

[@nerdcoregaming6468]

Also, I think the threshold itself really should be looked at. 500/1000 is super easy to remember, but I feel like realistically 750-900 is probably more accurate to the velocity they want. 😊

[@DiceCommando]

If they dropped the points, they'd actually see heroes go even faster. Realistically the target points are just a number, and everything revolves around it. What really drives the balance is the # of injected heroes.

[@LastingSilence]

I'm currently more concerned by the growing bloat than I am with the velocity. As more and more heroes are added to the pool and so few rotate out it will just keep slowing down and the existing points get distributed across more heroes. I'd prefer if they just upped the LL points given out and introduce a seasonal hard cap of LL points a hero can earn to avoid them leaving too quickly. If they for example locked it so a hero cannot get more than 300 points in a PQ season they can regulate the velocity while still allowing the other winning heroes to accumulate points at a quicker rate. If we have another year like 2024 with only heroes 1-3 leaving the format it's going to look like such a mess by the end.

[@DiceCommando]

Remember, that as the bloat increases it actually provides less of a buffer for an over-powered hero. If they come in and grab 30-40% of the larger points (due to the larger pool) they can LL in a shorter period. It's all related to each other... tricky tricky!

[@roecker54]

Great discussion. Go commando

[@DiceCommando]

Thank you sir!

[@brandont4259]

Personally, as someone who likes a large hero pool and wants to continue to see lots of new heroes annually, I think another possible solution would just be this: Cap the LL points for a hero each season (excluding major events like worlds) or for a set time period, and when that hero hits that threshold they are required to receive some card ban(s). E.g. Each set is a season, and a hero can only gain a maximum of 450 LL each season, but the week that they hit the 450 cap, LSS weakens the hero with a ban. The goal would be for the threshold to be such that it only affects a few heroes per season, and that the ban takes the hero down to a tier 2 or 3 power level, to quickly make room for LL points to continue to flow in on other heroes. Personally I just hate the idea of a hero coming into the game, and LL'ing within 6 months, that just feels awful to me.

[@DiceCommando]

I like this in concept. I do think LSS has shown a hesitancy to ban new cards (aka recently printed ones) and instead prefers to go for older cards.

[@borghe]

ummmmmm... wow, what a great video!! some quick thoughts the idea that "every hero" has to be accounted for in CC isn't exactly correct. plus the same issue exists in LL. what ACTUALLY has to be accounted for are archetypes.. aggro, control, fatigue, "runeblade", "guardian", etc.sure I could go on but hopefully you get the picture. of course there are delineations in all broad categories.. but that isn't any different than "secret sauce" from real deck builders to disrupt the meta of a particular event. I appreciate LSS' goal when it comes to design, intended rotation and steady state, etc.. overall I don't think it's realistic. they can only test every hero and every card interaction so much before it makes it to the player base.. even if they did a "public beta".. which is incredibly hard to do for a purely paper game.. (most are not going to give up their limited face to face time to play an "un-counted" format).. you just don't know how a hero is going to TRULY act when given to tens of thousands of players and thousands of pro deck builders. I feel they would have to be constantly adjusting (aka multiple times a year) that LL points and or events.. all of these downsides aside.. I DO think how LSS has handled the idea of "rotation" as IMHO the best in the industry. LSS realized before everyone else.. that it's not the cards that create a meta.. but the "shells".. which LSS has distilled down to the heroes themselves. by rotating those shells.. instead of the card pool.. in most cases (equipment and a few specs aside) all of the money players spend on cards is largely left alone and legal in CC.. and even if equipment relevancy rotates out as a result (Aria equipment for a while for example) it's easy to bring it back with new heroes.

[@DiceCommando]

Yeah, it’s a tricky problem! It’s a huge balancing act to make sure the format stays fresh and fun.

[@riddlermangaming3533]

Great stuff

[@DiceCommando]

Thanks! Appreciate the kind words!

[@devonkillebrew6325]

Have a min LL point gain of 250 that way heroes are gone in 4 years

[@pengwnbuster]

I think it'd be cool to have sets inject life with older heroes. If they make alt versions of reinar and katsu and provide more unique moves for them, that would be pretty cool and help the old ones too. They should also make an armory deck for Ira since her ability is so simple and is a great entry point

[@kalientei]

They are.

[@DamonHart]

Good stuff btw.

[@DiceCommando]

Appreciate the kind words!

[@jordanlego]

The power creep is so real. I wish they would chill a little bit